NVIDIA GeForce GTX 465 vs NVIDIA Quadro K2200 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro K2200 is the clear winner in this comparison, taking the only head-to-head benchmark recorded in the database. The GeForce GTX 465 does not win any benchmark category. This is a decisive split: the Quadro K2200 leads in every measurable compute metric, while the GTX 465 trails across the board.

The Quadro K2200's advantage is most pronounced in OpenCL compute workloads. Its recorded Geekbench OpenCL score of 11,431 places it 23% ahead of the GTX 465's 9,294 in the same test. This suggests the Quadro K2200 is better suited for tasks that leverage general-purpose GPU computing, such as rendering, simulation, or data processing. Its Maxwell architecture and newer design give it a substantial edge in raw compute throughput.

The GTX 465, by contrast, has no benchmark win in this dataset. Its only recorded score, 9,294 in Geekbench OpenCL, is lower than every score the Quadro K2200 achieves. The GTX 465's average benchmark score of 9,294 also places it in the 46th percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro K2200 sits at the 49th percentile. This difference, while modest in percentile terms, reflects a real performance gap in compute-oriented tasks.

For users prioritizing compute performance in professional workflows, the Quadro K2200 is the only sensible choice from this data. The GTX 465's strengths, if any, are not visible in the benchmark results. Its larger memory bus and higher bandwidth do not translate into compute wins here. The database shows a single-sided victory.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different architectural generations and process nodes. The Quadro K2200 uses the GM107 chip on a 28 nm TSMC process, built on the Maxwell architecture. It packs 1,870 million transistors into a 148 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.6 million per mm². This is a modern, efficient design.

The GTX 465 uses the GF100 chip on a 40 nm TSMC process, built on the Fermi architecture. It contains 3,100 million transistors on a much larger 529 mm² die, with a transistor density of only 5.9 million per mm². The older process node and larger die reflect a less efficient design from an earlier era.

Clock behavior differs significantly. The Quadro K2200 has explicit base and boost clocks of 1,046 MHz and 1,124 MHz, while the GTX 465 has no base or boost clock listed in the database. The Quadro K2200's memory runs at 1,253 MHz (5 Gbps effective), while the GTX 465's memory runs at 802 MHz (3.2 Gbps effective). Despite the GTX 465's higher memory clock in raw terms, its effective data rate is lower.

Memory configurations diverge sharply. The Quadro K2200 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 80.19 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTX 465 has 1,024 MB (1 GB) of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 102.7 GB/s. The GTX 465 has more bandwidth due to its wider bus, but less capacity and slower effective memory speed.

Compute resources tell a different story. The Quadro K2200 has 640 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 16 raster operation units. The GTX 465 has 352 shading units, 44 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The Quadro K2200 has nearly double the shading units, while the GTX 465 has slightly more TMUs and double the ROPs. The Quadro K2200's pixel rate is 17.98 GPixel/s versus 13.38 GPixel/s for the GTX 465, and its texture rate is 44.96 GTexel/s versus 26.75 GTexel/s.

Power and physical characteristics differ as well. The Quadro K2200 draws 68 W, is single-slot, and requires no power connectors, with a suggested PSU of 250 W. The GTX 465 draws 200 W, is dual-slot, and needs two 6-pin connectors, with a suggested PSU of 550 W. The Quadro K2200 is 202 mm long, while the GTX 465 is 241 mm long.

API support is mostly similar, with both supporting DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. However, the Quadro K2200 lists Vulkan 1.4 support, while the GTX 465 has no Vulkan entry in the database. The Quadro K2200 also has newer display outputs (1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort 1.2) versus the GTX 465's older outputs (2x DVI, 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a).

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only recorded head-to-head benchmark is Geekbench OpenCL. The Quadro K2200 scores 11,431, while the GTX 465 scores 9,294. This gives the Quadro K2200 a 23% lead in this test. The database also records a Geekbench Vulkan score of 10,090 for the Quadro K2200, but no Vulkan score exists for the GTX 465, which lacks Vulkan support entirely.

Breaking down the 23% delta: the Quadro K2200 outperforms the GTX 465 by 2,137 points in absolute terms. This is a substantial margin, roughly equivalent to the difference between the GTX 465 and its nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 850M, which scores 9,302 and trails the GTX 465 by only 0.1%. In other words, the Quadro K2200's lead over the GTX 465 is far larger than the typical gaps between cards in the same performance tier.

Context from the nearest rivals reinforces this. The Quadro K2200's average benchmark score of 10,761 puts it within 0.4% of the AMD Radeon Pro 450 (10,804), 0.7% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Ti (10,690), 1.1% behind the NVIDIA GeForce MX350 (10,883), and 1.2% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 6600S (10,629). The GTX 465's average of 9,294 puts it within 0.1% of the GTX 850M (9,302), 0.2% behind the AMD Radeon R7 M380 (9,313), 0.2% ahead of the GTX 960 (9,273), and 0.8% ahead of the AMD Radeon Vega 8 (9,221).

The performance gap between these two cards is roughly 15% in average benchmark score, and 23% in the single head-to-head test. This is not a marginal difference. The Quadro K2200 is in a clearly higher performance class for compute workloads.

FAQ

Q: Which card has better OpenCL performance?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K2200, with a Geekbench OpenCL score of 11,431 versus 9,294 for the GTX 465, a 23% advantage.

Q: Does the GTX 465 support Vulkan?

A: No. The GTX 465 has no Vulkan entry in the database, while the Quadro K2200 supports Vulkan 1.4 and scores 10,090 in Geekbench Vulkan.

Q: Which card has more memory?

A: The Quadro K2200 has 4 GB of GDDR5, while the GTX 465 has 1,024 MB (1 GB) of GDDR5. The GTX 465 has a wider 256-bit bus and higher bandwidth at 102.7 GB/s versus 80.19 GB/s.

Q: What are the power requirements?

A: The Quadro K2200 has a 68 W TDP and needs no power connectors, with a suggested 250 W PSU. The GTX 465 has a 200 W TDP, requires two 6-pin connectors, and a suggested 550 W PSU.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The Quadro K2200 has 640 shading units, while the GTX 465 has 352. The GTX 465 has more ROPs (32 vs 16) and slightly more TMUs (44 vs 40).

Q: How do these cards compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The Quadro K2200's average score of 10,761 is within 1.2% of its nearest rivals, while the GTX 465's average of 9,294 is within 0.8% of its nearest rivals. The Quadro K2200 sits at the 49th percentile of all GPUs, the GTX 465 at the 46th.

The Verdict

The data points to a single conclusion: the NVIDIA Quadro K2200 is the superior card for compute performance. It wins the only head-to-head benchmark by 23%, has a higher average benchmark score (10,761 vs 9,294), and holds a higher percentile rank among all GPUs (49th vs 46th). The Quadro K2200 also supports Vulkan, which the GTX 465 cannot do.

The GTX 465's advantages are confined to memory bandwidth (102.7 GB/s vs 80.19 GB/s), ROP count (32 vs 16), and TMU count (44 vs 40). These do not translate into compute wins in the recorded benchmarks. The GTX 465's higher power draw (200 W vs 68 W), larger physical footprint (241 mm vs 202 mm, dual-slot vs single-slot), and need for external power connectors make it a less attractive option for most systems.

For users running OpenCL compute workloads, the Quadro K2200 is the clear choice. Its 23% lead in the head-to-head test is decisive. The Vulkan support adds further utility for modern applications. The GTX 465, despite its wider memory bus and higher bandwidth, cannot match the Quadro K2200's compute throughput.

The GTX 465's nearest rivals include the GTX 850M (0.1% behind), the Radeon R7 M380 (0.2% behind), the GTX 960 (0.2% ahead), and the Radeon Vega 8 (0.8% ahead). These are all cards in a similar performance tier. The Quadro K2200's nearest rivals, such as the Radeon Pro 450 (0.4% behind) and the MX350 (1.1% ahead), represent a higher performance class.

The verdict is straightforward: choose the Quadro K2200 for compute performance, API support, power efficiency, and modern features. The GTX 465 only makes sense if the wider memory bus and higher bandwidth are critical for a specific workload, but the benchmark data does not support that choice.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro K2200 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 465 |

|---|---|---|

| Chip | GM107 | GF100 |

| Architecture | Maxwell | Fermi |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 40 nm |

| Transistors | 1,870 million | 3,100 million |

| Die Size | 148 mm² | 529 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.6M / mm² | 5.9M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1046 MHz | Not listed |

| Boost Clock | 1124 MHz | Not listed |

| Memory Clock | 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) | 802 MHz (3.2 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 1024 MB |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 80.19 GB/s | 102.7 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 640 | 352 |

| TMUs | 40 | 44 |

| ROPs | 16 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 17.98 GPixel/s | 13.38 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 44.96 GTexel/s | 26.75 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 1,438.7 GFLOPS | 855.4 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 68 W | 200 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | Dual-slot |

| Power Connectors | None | 2x 6-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | 550 W |

| Display Outputs | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort 1.2 | 2x DVI, 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a |

| Vulkan Support | 1.4 | Not listed |

| Length | 202 mm (8 inches) | 241 mm (9.5 inches) |

| Release Date | 2014-07-21 | 2010-05-30 |

| Launch MSRP | Not listed | 279 USD |

| Average Benchmark Score | 10,761 | 9,294 |

| Percentile vs All GPUs | 49 | 46 |